Nation’s high court sides with Guantanamo detainees
The Supreme Court yesterday extended rights to U.S. prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba. The ruling, granting habeas corpus to the prisoners, is seen as a rebuke to the Bush administration. The White House rejected that notion, saying the court was using “rearview glasses.”
Read the NY Times story we ran here. Read the Washington Post story here.
What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling?


Jamie Riley is the P-D letters editor and gatekeeper of the letters blog. Before joining the editorial page in May 2005, she was a reporter and page designer. Jamie lives in University City with her husband, Charles, daughter, Elise, and the world's best Jack Russell terrier, Logan, better known as Stinky.
Well Eric and his editorial staff must have had the champagne bottles popping last night with this one! Just remember - be careful what you wish for. This ruling actually makes me physically ill. What next from these ACLU Justices: group hug ordered between the prisoners and the victims’ families from 9-11? Funny how the lame-stream media doesn’t report that many of the detainees that have been released from GITMO have been found again on the battlefield killing Americans.
If this doesn’t wake up the voters as to why we need to elect Republicans in November and put them back in charge after these disastrous last 17 months, nothing else will. Where is President Lincoln when we need him?
Great Centwist….Let’s just eliminate the priviledge of habeas corpus as one of the safegaurds of liberty throughout the United States and elsewhere because of repeat offenders….Let’s hold individuals for 6 years even though they’ve never been charged with a crime, never had the right to face their accussers, and never seen a judge to plead their innocence…..Hey, isn’t this the same lack of democratic justice that convinced you neo-cons to invade Iraq and overthrow evil Saddam…Now you’re no better than the same ruthless dictator that started this detainee torture and illegal imprisonment.
“This court ruling is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law”.
Barak Obama, June 12, 2008.
Isn’t there a specific clause in the Geneva Conventions that addresses quasi-military groups who don’t fight under a specific banner for a soveriegn entity and hide behind civilians? How does this ruling effect that?
Maybe I’m looking at it wrong but I see a possible benefit to what is an otherwise foolish decision. The US is under no obligation to provide a platform for radical Islamist propaganda. Instead of wasting brig and stockade space and a court’s time trying terrorist scumbags, we leave their corpses to rot on the battlefield. We can make places like GITMO obsolete if there’s no one alive to put there.
This decision is absolutely appalling. NEVER before have the rights of Americans been granted to its sworn enemies. Congress has twice passed laws concerning the guests at Club Gitmo, and the five liberal idiots on the court have usurped the legislative branch and imposed their will of made up law. There was no foundation in precedent for this decision, they simply made it up. These 5 idiots are the type that Obamessiah would appoint to the Court. No Thanks, Keep the Change!
“Rights granted to our sworn enemies?” Who determines our sworn enimies?
Didn’t Ayatollah Khomeini call every American a “sworn enemy” in 1979?
Ask the 52 American hostages who were held for 444 days if Khomeini was justified in holding his “sworn enemies” without legal review.
Centwist transforms himself into another Saddam.
Sub Par becomes another Ayatollah.
All in the name of justice.
Good reason for not taking prisoners. As “A Centrist” correctly points out, many of those that we have already released went straight back to killing our people and terrorizing their own countrymen. The radical terrorists take our people, including civilian reporters and contractors, just long enough to drag them to death behind a truck, hang them from a bridge, or behead them on television.
We have learned to our sorrow that certain classes of criminals in our own society cannot be rehabilitated. What more should we expect of foreign murderers who have sworn to kill us all?
Today’s P-D tells about three terrorists with Muslim names that were just picked up in Cleveland. Their aim in life was to help others in their homeland to kill Americans.
Our liberals who are shouting “Habeas corpus” may not think they are on the radical muslims’ hitlist. Better think again, infidels.
Let’s just kill them all and be civilized about it.
We’ve found the barbarians. The barbarians are us.
I don’t know what all the cryin’ is about. 7 of the 9 justices were put there by Republican presidents. Now all of a sudden they are “ACLU justices”? Ain’t youse guys ever happy?
Garrison, thanks for the kind words. I appreciate that. Apparently you were speaking about yourself when you called yourself a barbarian. You seem to really enjoy slinging names at other bloggers.
Slam - just because ACLU justices were appointed by Republicans doesn’t mean they aren’t ACLU justices. It means that the appointing president made bad Supreme Court picks.